Cameron to alter the rules of sucession...

[Kayless]

Well obvioulsy all the serious propblems are sorted so he can divert his eneregy to this irrelevance! Why mess about with something that doesn't affect anyone?

[ludwig]

Because it's something that should obviously be done and it doesn't cost any money or take any time or effort.

[jackthehat]

It may not be the most pressing item on the agenda, but it has to be addressed sooner rather than later and the Government has many things to oversee during its' time in office.

Your break hasn't really enhanced your charm, has it.....?

[Kayless]

so an act of parliament takes no time or effort! Right oh!

[anotheoldgit]

/// doesn't affect anyone ///

I think the next female heir in succession would think differently.

[jno]

because it's doing the right thing?

[Kayless]

ah so governement is now doing the right thing, I see, when did that start?!

[mungbeanz]

It's a complete waste of time. As long as one of the Royals plonks their posh arse on the throne when another kicks the bucket isn't that enough? Not like they lead us into battle against the French anymore, is it?

[jno]

today?

Would you prefer them to go on doing the wrong thing so you can complain about that too?

[jake-the-peg]

Because while it doesn't affect anyone it's easier to do

Before Prince William has any children is the best time to make the change.

But frankly do we care?

[ludwig]

Exactly Jake - the bill needs to be rushed through so Wills and Kate can start bonking frantically.

[Kayless]

So can we use these "zero cost/time/effort" acts of parliament for other things too?

[jackthehat]

You think they don't already?

[ludwig]

Yes, R1kayless - as jack says - you think they don't use these "zero cost/time/effort" acts of parliament for other things already?

[venator]

Apparently, Jeffrey Archer was the last MP to try presenting this Bill

Make of that what you will...

[Kayless]

so how does it work? presumably it has to be a peice of statute voted on in some way. The PM can't just pass it himself.

[Kromovaracun]

R1 isn't wrong to point out that acts of parliament don't cost nothing. However doing this now won't cost any more than it would to do it at another time... and because it's pretty uncontroversial it can be passed with about the minimum cost to resources possible.

[ludwig]

Yes krom - there won't be much debating, a few speeches and a quick vote.

[jackthehat]

The first step has been that the Commonwealth Countries have also agreed (should it be a girl) to accept the firstborn child of William and Kate as their Queen.

The amendments (also abolishing the No Catholics rule; and the seeking permission from the monarch to marry rule) can be drafted quickly and quietly in a side-office somewhere and then voted through without much botheration or claiming much time in 'The House'.

[anotheoldgit]

jake-the-peg

/// But frankly do we care? ///

You may not but there are thousands out there that do.

This is a huge constitutional step to take in our heritage, that has not changed for a thousand years or more

Personally I can't see why it makes any difference if it is the female or male that is next in the line of succession of the throne.

But having said that I would have strong opinions if they were to introduce legislation which made it compulsory for females to keep their surname upon marriage, and all their off-springs to retain that name.

After all haven't males always wanted to pass on their family name down through the generations?

But then this could open up for an all new debate.

[Kayless]

Will this effect the current sucession order, eg will Princess Anne and her offspring all jump Edward and Andrew in the line?